Ecological Economics: Bartosz Bartkowski, Nele Lienhoop, Bernd Hansjürgens

Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Analysis
Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic

valuation studies of biological diversity
Bartosz Bartkowski , Nele Lienhoop, Bernd Hansjrgens
UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrae 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 June 2014
Received in revised form 18 December 2014
Accepted 23 February 2015
Available online 4 March 2015
Keywords:
Biodiversity
Economic valuation
Literature review
Biodiversity proxies
Multi-attribute valuation
a b s t r a c t
Biodiversity is a highly complex and abstract ecological concept. Even though it is not one physical entity, it inuences human well-being in multiple ways, mostly indirectly. While considerable research effort has been
spent on the economic valuation of biodiversity, it remains to be a particularly challenging valuation object. Valuation practitioners therefore have to use proxies for biodiversity, many of which are very simple (single species,
habitats). This paper presents a comprehensive and critical review of biodiversity valuation studies with special
emphasis on biodiversity valuation in order to depict the state-of-the-art in this research eld. It develops evaluation criteria so as to identify best-practice applications and shows that the eld of biodiversity valuation studies
is rather heterogeneous regarding both valuation objects and valuation methods. On the basis of our evaluation
criteria and best-practice studies we suggest that to account for the complexity and abstractness of biodiversity,
multi-attribute approaches with encompassing information provision should be used that emphasise the roles
biodiversity plays for human well-being.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The term biodiversity has experienced a rarely seen rise in recent decades. Coined in 1986 by Walter Rosen, in 1992 it was included in the
title of one major outcome of the Rio Earth Summitthe Convention
on Biological Diversity. Another 10 years later it was an essential part
of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework. Since then, it
has been becoming ever more popular both in policy and scientic debates. In 2008, the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) process was initiated. In 2013, the IPBES, the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was
launched, a UN funded body that is hoped to mimic the success and inuence the IPCC has had in the area of climate change.
Despite its obvious success, or maybe just because of it, the concept
of biodiversity has remained vague and thus controversial. Also, its diffusion from scientic discourse into public awareness has been only
partialaccording to public opinion polls, many people around the
world do not know the term, and even fewer are able to dene it
(DEFRA, 2007; UEBT, 2013). This is not surprising given that biodiversity
is a complex, multi-level concept, which includes genetic, species, functional, molecular and phylogenetic diversity, among others. Accordingly, there are many different approaches to the measurement of
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bartosz.bartkowski@ufz.de (B. Bartkowski), nele.lienhoop@ufz.de
(N. Lienhoop), bernd.hansjuergens@ufz.de (B. Hansjrgens).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023
0921-8009/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
biodiversity, which reect various perspectives and specic research

needs.
As indicated by the explicit inclusion of the concept in the name of
the major study of the state of the art in environmental economics,
the rst TEEB report on Ecological and Economic Foundations
(Kumar, 2010), biodiversity is by no means a new concept for economists. On the contrary, economists have made signicant contributions
to the topic, including, among other things, the design of diversity indices (Solow et al., 1993; Weitzman, 1992; see also Baumgrtner, 2007),
models of optimal conservation strategies (Figge, 2004; Weitzman,
1998), analysis of biodiversity as insurance (Weitzman, 2000) and of
the socio-economic drivers of biodiversity loss (Swanson, 1998), as
well as economic valuation of biodiversity (Heal, 2000; Kumar, 2010;
Pearce and Moran, 1994). However, just as in the political discourse,
the use of the word biodiversity has not always been precise in the economic literature. Often the term is used just as a synonym for nature or
life on Earth, which is the broad meaning of the word. In its narrower,
more specic meaning, however, biodiversity emphasises the diversity
or variety of all the biotic components the ecosphere consists of
(Swingland, 2013), rather than the components as such. There is a
need to distinguish between the two interpretations of the term.
In the case of valuation, the issue of the term's interpretation might
be even more problematic. In fact, economic valuation of nature is mostly based on the ecosystem services approach (Daily, 1997). There are
many different frameworks, classications and denitions of ecosystem
services in the valuation context (see, e.g., de Groot et al., 2002, 2010),
B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114
and no consensus on a common framework has yet been reached

(Nahlik et al., 2012). Within the ecosystem service framework(s), the
role of biodiversity is at best unclear, allowing for many contesting interpretations, e.g., in respect to the question whether biodiversity is
regarded as the source of ecosystem services or not (Atkinson et al.,
2012; Elmqvist et al., 2010; Mace et al., 2012). As it is a complex concept
rather than a single physical entity, biodiversity cannot be captured directly, but only by use of proxies or indicators. Accordingly, economic
valuation studies that aim to assign a value to biodiversity choose very
diverging approaches and use different proxies to approximate this
inherently abstract and complex concept (Meinard and Grill, 2011).
Already in the early stages of biodiversity valuation research, Pearce
(2001) complained that most valuation studies claiming to provide
value estimates of biodiversity actually had valued biological resources,
not their diversity (see also Turner et al., 2003; Christie et al., 2006).
Nunes et al. (2003) and Christie et al. (2004) have reached similar conclusions in their overview of suitable valuation approaches and monetary value estimates for different aspects of biodiversity (genetic and
species diversity, single species, multiple species, natural habitats, biological resources, ecosystem functions and services).
Only three studies have reviewed the biodiversity valuation literature
(Bakhtiari et al., 2014; Christie et al., 2004; Nunes and van den Bergh,
2001), which differ from the review presented here. Due to their specic
focus, the existing reviews explicitly do not include all biodiversity valuation studies available at the time of publication (Christie et al., 2004;
Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001) or they focus on a specic class of valuation methods, namely choice experiments (Bakhtiari et al., 2014). In our
review we provide an update of existing biodiversity valuation studies
and include the entire range of valuation methods used. Also, Nunes
and van den Bergh's categorisation of biodiversity studies was based on
the values they ascribed to biodiversity. Conversely, our approach is
more bottom-up, in that our biodiversity proxies (see Section 3) are derived from the studies reviewed here. Furthermore, earlier reviews do
not clearly distinguish between biodiversity and biological resources.
Here, we argue that this distinction is crucial and assess the accumulated
body of valuation research focusing on biodiversity as valuation object.
For this purpose, we conducted a comprehensive, exhaustive and critical
review of all biodiversity valuation literature available through October
2014 and identied all studies that value diversity.
The specic objectives of the review are:
to identify and critically discuss the suitability of proxies for biodiversity used in valuation studies;
to explore common patterns and differences in the relevant body of
applied literature;
to pinpoint strengths and limitations of existing approaches and
identify best-practice studies;
to present criteria for a proper valuation of biodiversity;
to offer an orientation as to how biodiversity should be valued.
The remainder of our article is structured as follows: in Section 2, an

overview of the relevant ecological concepts regarding the denition
and measurement of biodiversity is offered. The third section discusses
the materials and methods used to conduct the actual literature review.
We present the categories of biodiversity proxies derived from our review and used to group the approaches found in the studies reviewed.
In the fourth section, we outline our understanding of the term biodiversity and delineate it from related valuation objects, and we derive
criteria for proper economic valuation of biodiversity. In the fth section, key results of the review are presented. Section 6 contains an evaluation of the approaches identied in the review in accordance with the
criteria proposed in Section 4, and the identication and presentation of
best-practice approaches. The last, concluding section offers an orientation towards a more consistent framework for the valuation of biodiversity and recommendations for future research.
2. Denitions and Measures of Biodiversity

There exist many different denitions of biodiversity (DeLong, 1996).
The term was coined by Walter Rosen in 1986 in the context of the National Forum on BioDiversity (Takacs, 1996). However, its full form, biological diversity, has been in use since at least 1980 (Swingland, 2013).
According to critics, the term is not scientic, but advocative (Takacs,
1996), and represents a very vague, pseudocognate1 concept (Gaston,
1996a; see also Kahn et al., 2001). Accordingly, the most widely-used definition of biodiversity, adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD, 1992), is not very specic.
Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms
from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are
part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems.
It has been argued, however, that this vagueness is insurmountable,
and that for pragmatic reasons it is actually necessary, since the concept
is used in many different contexts (Mace et al., 2012; Koricheva and
Siipi, 2004). In the end, biodiversity may be viewed as a broad social
concept in need for more concrete sub-concepts to be used as proxies
when it comes to specic applications.
As a consequence of the term's complexity, abstractness and the
insurmountable difculty to provide an unambiguous denition of it,
there exist a vast number of biodiversity measures and indicators
(CBD, 2011; Pereira et al., 2013). For every biodiversity level (intraspecies, interspecies, between ecosystems), many different measures are
available (see Table 1).
The design and use of biodiversity indices face essential data constraints (Mace, 2014; Pereira et al., 2013), which may be the reason
why in applications species richness and related measures are by far
the most popular. Often, less direct indicators of biodiversity (change)
are used, including Red List data, habitat amount, water quality for
aquatic biodiversity and so-called indicator species (Butchart et al.,
2010).
3. Materials and Methods
To make the present literature review as comprehensive and
exhaustive as possible, all relevant sources have been examined. The
following databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published
through October 2014 using a range of alternative search terms for both
biodiversity and economic valuation: 1) the Web of Science database, 2) the TEEB Valuation Database (Van der Ploeg and de Groot,
2010), and 3) Carson's contingent valuation bibliography (Carson,
2011).2
As is clear from the introductory sections, the measurement and
operationalisation of biodiversity are all but trivial tasks. Since there is
no single right indicator of biodiversity and since data constraints
abound, economists who have aimed at valuing it have used various different proxies for biodiversity. In what follows, we would like to offer a
classication of the attributes valuation practitioners used as proxies.3
The classication was specically designed for the purposes of the review. It has been inspired by classications proposed by Nunes et al.
(2003) and Pearce (2001), but it deviates from them, rst, in that it is
based on a more rigorous denition of biodiversity (see Section 4),
and second, it was adapted during the process of reviewing the valuation studies so as to enable the full attribution of all studies to the
1
Pseudocognate terms are observed to be implicitly treated as if everyone understood
them equally, even though no clear denition exists.
2
A more detailed description of the search process can be found in Appendix A.
3
We deliberately use the word proxies instead of indicators, as the proxies used by
valuation practitioners are not always identical with the indicators ecologists use in biodiversity research (see also Section 6.2).

Table 1
Common measures of biodiversity.
Compiled from Magurran (1996), Gotelli and Chao (2013) and Pereira et al. (2013).
Level of diversity
Genetic diversity
Species diversity
Phylogenetic/taxonomic/functional
Ecosystem diversity
Measures
Allelic diversity (genotypic differences)
Shannon entropy (a.k.a. Shannon
Wiener index)
GiniSimpson index
Species richness
Rao's quadratic entropy
Phylogenetic entropy
Various similarity indices, mostly based
on species diversity indices
respective categories. As a result, the following attribute categories

were identied:
Numbers: species diversity or, more simply, species richness is often
interpreted as a suitable proxy for biodiversity (Christie et al., 2007;
Gaston, 1996b). Valuation studies falling into this category make use
of concrete species richness numbers or use some of the relatively
simpler biodiversity indices (e.g., the ShannonWiener index) as
proxy for the level of biodiversity in the studied ecosystem.
Species: often, single species or groups of species have been used to
approximate biodiversity. Falling into this category are valuations of
rare/threatened/endangered species, invasive species as well as
changes in the abundances of (particular) species.
Genetics: an important role of biodiversity is believed to be it being the
carrier of option value, i.e., the value resulting from possible future
utility derived from ecosystems, which is inherently linked to genetic
diversity. Valuations based on the expenditures on research or
bioprospecting4 have been included in this category. Also, valuation
studies focusing on preferences of consumers and farmers for different varieties of agricultural crops fall into this category.
Functions: some valuation researchers have attempted to elicit the
value people hold for biodiversity by referring to its role in underpinning and facilitating the functions and processes of ecosystems, which
may be interpreted as reecting the value of biodiversity in increasing
ecosystem stability and resilience (Balvanera et al., 2006; Jax, 2010;
Mace et al., 2012).
Habitats: a very common approach for approximating the value of biodiversity is to elicit people's values for the preservation of habitats,
which is similar to the use of the biodiversity indicator habitat
amount by ecologists. This category also includes the ecosystem service biodiversity protection (Van der Ploeg and de Groot, 2010).
Abstract: in this category we subsume all valuation studies that have
tried to deal with biodiversity in a more abstract way, mostly by asking people to value in contingent valuation study scenarios of low,
medium or high levels of biodiversity, without more explicit specication within the questionnaire.
An important criterion according to which the categories dened

above can be divided is whether they are framed in terms of biodiversity
components or in terms of its roles for human well-being. By components we mean the various physical levels or aspects of biodiversity,
such as species and genes. The roles of biodiversity include its role as insurance, as carrier of future options or as underpinning of
ecosystemsin other words, we mean by roles the particular ways
4
Bioprospecting refers to the assessment of life forms for development of unique molecules, biological entities, or structures that have potential utility in the economic sphere.
Examples of bioprospecting include the screening of microorganisms for the ability to metabolize oil spills, the screening of marine organisms for antifouling compounds to prevent
the attachment of barnacles to ship hulls, the analysis of archael species in hot springs to
discover new temperature resistant DNA polymerases, or the search for new pharmaceutical compounds from rain forest plants for the treatment of disease (Cox and King, 2013,
p. 588).
through which biodiversity inuences human well-being. As can be easily seen, Numbers and Species focus on components of biodiversity; Genetics and Functions are rather framed in terms of roles. Meanwhile,
the two remaining categories Habitats and Abstract cannot be easily
attributed, as they seem too imprecise to t the distinction between
roles and components in a meaningful and sensible way.
Two qualications should be made regarding the studies included in
the categories Genetics and Species. Within the Genetics category, studies
based on the (implicit) valuations expressed in bioprospecting contracts are only included if they explicitly value genetic diversity. No attention is paid to the contracts themselves. Meanwhile, Nunes and
van den Bergh (2001) included a list with a couple of such contracts
in their overview of different biodiversity valuation approaches. For a
thorough study of bioprospecting contracts, see ten Kate and Laird
(2000). In the Species category, only those studies have been included
whose authors specically mention that they use rare/threatened/endangered species as proxy for biodiversity (e.g., Jacobsen et al., 2012).5
Meanwhile, there are many valuation studies in which these species
were chosen as valuation objects for other reasons, particularly because
they are often well-known, iconic species, for which values can be elicited relatively easily. Such studies have been omitted from the review.
4. Criteria for the Evaluation of Biodiversity Proxies
Before presenting criteria that we use to evaluate biodiversity proxies found in the studies reviewed here, we would like to briey outline
our understanding of the term biodiversity. A simple yet precise denition of biodiversity is that it is the multiplicity of kinds within biotic or
biota-encompassing categories (Maier, 2012), including species, habitats, functional groups and genotypes. Biodiversity is not a synonym
for nature. It stresses the diversity of biological things without being
concerned with their identity. Therefore, it cannot be said, in our opinion, that biodiversity provides ecosystem services, as it is only a characteristic of an ecosystem, the latter being the actual service provider.
Accordingly, biodiversity is likely to have a rather indirect value in
that it is linked to some instrumentally valuable properties of an ecosystem (we call these properties the roles biodiversity plays for human
well-being). For instance, in an empirical study including interviews
and discussions with laypeople, Bakhtiari et al. (2014) found that such
properties might be resilience and insurance value, aesthetics or option
value.
As one important aim of our review is to evaluate the biodiversity
proxies used in the valuation studies covered by it, it is important to
provide criteria for this evaluation. We would like to propose the following three criteria:
1. A biodiversity proxy should not reduce biodiversity to one single aspect. It is a complex and multi-facetted entity, thus it is difcult to
identify proxies that cover the full extent of biodiversity. For example, a small sub-category of species cannot properly capture biodiversity and its value on its own. Indeed, it might well be impossible to
construct a proxy that captures all aspects of biodiversity. Nonetheless, a proper proxy should cover as many aspects and dimensions
of biodiversity as possible, given data, resource and other constraints.
A single component will not do the job: no single component,
whether genes, species, or ecosystems, is consistently a good indicator of overall biodiversity, as the components can vary independently (MEA, 2005, p. 1).
2. A biodiversity proxy should not cover more than biodiversity. As we
are concerned with the economic value of the diversity of biological
resources, the identity of the latter and other valuable aspects/components of natural systems are less relevant, e.g., wilderness, ecosystem services or abiotic components of ecosystems. It is crucial that
The same criterion was used with regard to the Habitat proxy, of course.
biodiversity not be taken to be a synonym for nature or ecosystem,

as it is a distinct concept and only has analytic value if its distinctness
is kept in mind. Good biodiversity proxies should be as precise as
possible, being neither too narrow nor too encompassing.
3. The connection between the chosen biodiversity proxy and the contribution of biodiversity to human well-being should be clear. This is particularly relevant in stated preference
studies, where willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept compensation (WTA)
for changes in biodiversity is directly elicited from members of the society. It is not enough
for respondents to be aware of what biodiversity generally means for human well-being
(e.g., as underpinning the stability of ecosystem services provision)it should also be
made clear to them what the specic change in biodiversity which is the basis of the
WTP/WTA elicitation means in terms of their well-being. This calls for explicitly incorporating the change's effects on human well-being into WTP/WTA questions. Where possible, the analysed changes should also be quantied. However, in some cases it might not
be possible to quantify a change in biodiversity without making it incomprehensible to respondents. A mere statement that, e.g., the number of species has changed from X to Y is
unlikely to be relevant for a respondent's assessment of her well-being. Also in studies not
based on stated preference elicitation the link between biodiversity proxy and human
well-being should be comprehensible.
We ignore for the moment the more practical criterion of data availability, although, of course, the data requirements of some biodiversity
proxies are relatively more easily satised.
5. Review of Existing Biodiversity Valuation StudiesBasic Results

123 distinct studies have been found that provide economic value estimates for biodiversity.6 Most important statistics have been summarised
in Fig. 1.
As can be seen in panel a), 60 studies were conducted in Europe and
23 in Asia, the other continents being represented much less frequently.
Even though it is widely recognised that most biodiversity hotspots are
located in the tropics, particularly in South America, equatorial Africa
and South-East Asia (Myers et al., 2000), only a few economic valuation
studies of biodiversity were conducted in these extremely biodiverse
ideas. This nding is in accordance with a more general pattern identied by Christie et al. (2012), who found out that most valuation studies
are being conducted in developed countries, whereas ecologically more
valuable areas in the developing world remain clearly understudied
(see also Seppelt et al., 2011). This might reect both the lack of data
and skills among practitioners in developing countries and problems related to usage of monetary value categories in these regions (Norgaard,
2010).
Panel b) shows the distribution of the studies with regard to biomes
covered.7 44 studies investigated the value of biodiversity in forest ecosystems (14 of which were tropical forests), in 19 cases the study area
was marine. 17 studies covered more than one biome, in 13 cultivated
areas were studied. The other biome categories are less frequent, wetlands (9 studies) being the only remaining one with more than 5
occurrences.
Before we come to panels c) and d) of Fig. 1, we would like to mention the temporal distribution of the studies included in our review (see
Fig. 2). The two oldest studies were conducted in 1992 (Garrod and
Willis, 1994; Veisten et al., 2004). After a rather slow start during the
1990s, when only a few attempts to identify the economic value of biodiversity took place, after 2000 the number of studies conducted each
year more than doubled. This rise in the wake of the new millennium
coincides with the publication of David Pearce's complaint about the
lack of studies valuing diversity and not biological resources (Pearce,
2001). In many papers no information about the year the studies had
been conducted could be found. However, when publication years are
considered, the rising trend remains largely the same.
A full list of the studies included in this review is provided in Appendix B.

7
The classication of biomes follows the respective TEEB classication (de Groot et al.,
2010).
Let us now return to Fig. 1. Panel c) reveals that a number of different

valuation methods are used to value biodiversity. Stated preference
methods, notably contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiments
(CEs)8 are the most common means to elicit the economic value of biodiversity with overall 103 out of 125 applications (two studies used
more than one method). The other two stated preference methods
(SPM) applied were contingent ranking and the Pebble Distribution
Method (Anthony and Bellinger, 2007). Of those stated preference studies, four were combined with deliberative approaches to economic valuation. Travel cost (TC) and contingent behaviour (CB) were employed
in only 5 studies. The remaining 15 studies applied various marketbased (MB) valuation methods. Panel d) summarises the most important insight from our review, viz., the use of various biodiversity proxies.
The most common proxies are Habitats and Species, which were used 51
and 43 times, respectively. The other proxy categories are much less frequent: Numbers was used in 15 studies, Genetics in 11, Functions in 9 and
Abstract in 7. Ten studies used multiple proxies (see also Section 6.3).
The last two statistics can be combined so as to see whether the application of particular methods depends on the proxies chosen. Table 2
maps these two aspects.
Travel cost, contingent behaviour and other stated preferences
(SPM) can be ignored here because there are only very few studies
using these methods. When the other three method classes are compared, two patterns are visible: rst, studies that used market-based
methods made use of the attributes belonging to the Functions category
relatively often. Second, there is a difference between choice experiments and contingent valuation in that the former are more often
used in combination with Species and the latter with Habitats. A possible
explanation might be that Species can be interpreted as an attribute
more naturally than Habitats.9 However, many choice experiment
studies still did use an attribute belonging to the Habitats category.
6. Discussion and Evaluation
We would like to start the discussion by commenting on the application of valuation methods in biodiversity valuation studies. Afterwards,
in Section 6.2, we will evaluate the biodiversity proxies found in our
review, based on the criteria developed in Section 4. In Section 6.3,
multi-attribute studies will be presented and their strengths and shortcomings discussed.
6.1. Methods Used to Value Biodiversity
As shown in Section 5, more than 80% of the reviewed studies applied either contingent valuation (CV) or choice experiments (CEs).
The frequency of stated preference techniques strengthens the position,
expressed for example by Meinard and Grill (2011), that this method
class offers an especially adequate means to meaningfully value the abstract good biodiversity. Other methods do not have the potential to
capture non-use (Pascual et al., 2010) and indirect values, which are
crucial value components of biodiversity. Furthermore, four studies in
our review made use of deliberative approaches to economic valuation,
which combine the deliberative aspects of citizens' juries with the elicitation of individual preferences through CV or CE and better enable respondents to express their preferences for complex and unfamiliar
public goods and services (Gregory, 2000; Lienhoop and MacMillan,
2007; MacMillan et al., 2002; Spash, 2007). Szab (2011) showed in
the context of biodiversity valuation that deliberative approaches significantly reduce the incidence of protest bids. Both Wtzold et al. (2008)
8
Our usage of the terms reects the common usage by practitioners (including the
studies reviewed here), instead of the more consistent nomenclature proposed by Carson
and Louviere (2011), which does not really reect common practice to date.
9
We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out to us this explanation.
Fig. 1. Basic results of the literature review on economic valuation of biodiversity.
and Christie et al. (2006) applied deliberative methods in hope for learning effects and to overcome issues of unfamiliarity and complexity of the
valued goods. This was also the goal of Anthony and Bellinger (2007) in a
developing country context. Deliberative monetary valuation might be
seen as offering a particularly good instrument for the elicitation of individual preferences for the complex good biodiversity. However, it is important to note that deliberative monetary valuation is sometimes
viewed as being at odds with certain tenets of neoclassical economic theory, on which conventional economic valuation methods are based.
6.2. Evaluation of Biodiversity Proxies

In general, it should be emphasised that biodiversity indicators, as
they are dened in ecology, are sometimes used as proxies in valuation
studies, but often the proxies are not identical with indicators. This is
especially the case in stated preference studies, where a biodiversity
proxy fulls a different role than a biodiversity indicator normally
does. Rather than just indicating the state of or changes to biodiversity
in an ecosystem, a proxy used in a questionnaire-based study is meant
Fig. 2. Temporal development of economic valuations of biodiversity.
Table 2
Dependence of attributes on methods.
Attributes/methods
CE
CV
SPM
CB
TC
MB
Habitats
11
(0.18)
30
(0.48)
10
(0.16)
3
(0.05)
4
(0.06)
4
(0.06)
62
28
(0.54)
12
(0.23)
3
(0.06)
3
(0.06)
5
(0.10)
1
(0.02)
52
4
(1.0)
0
1
(1.0)
0
7
(0.47)
1
(0.07)
1
(0.07)
0
Species
Numbers
Abstract
Genetics
Functions
0
1
(0.5)
1
(0.5)
0
2
(0.13)
4
(0.27)
15
51
(0.38)
43
(0.32)
15
(0.11)
7
(0.05)
11
(0.08)
9
(0.07)
136
Explanation: Each cell contains the absolute number of studies using the respective combination of method and attribute. Italic numbers in brackets inform about the proportion of studies
that used the specic attributemethod combination compared to the number of studies using the respective method. The bottom row and the last column indicate sums. Abbreviations:
CE = choice experiment, CV = contingent valuation, SPM = other stated preference methods, CB = contingent behaviour, TC = travel cost, MB = market-based methods.
to symbolise biodiversity in a way that makes clear its link and contribution to human well-being.
6.2.1. Habitats
This proxy covers many more aspects than just the diversity of an
ecosystem's components and hence it is impossible to separate out the
biodiversity aspect. Furthermore, habitats include many abiotic components, whereas biodiversity is by its very denition restricted to the biotic dimension of ecosystems. Some studies have included biodiversity
protection as an ecosystem service, possibly following the idea behind
the new service category of habitat services introduced in the TEEB
framework (de Groot et al., 2010). While it was shown that biomes
are a relatively good predictor of species richness (Gerstner et al.,
2014), the identication of biodiversity changes with changes in the
extent of habitat protection appears unwarranted, at least as a
generalisation.10 Having said that, we would like to add that to determine the value of an ecosystem, it might be more sensible to value it
as a whole, rather than to value single ecosystem services separately,
possibly by use of different valuation methods, and to subsequently aggregate their values additively.11 As a proxy for biodiversity in valuation
studies, however, habitat protection is not sufcient and too imprecise.
6.2.2. Species
The use of rare/threatened/endangered or invasive species as biodiversity proxy covers only one single component of biodiversity. While it
may be argued that in some cases keystone species are a good indicator
of biodiversity (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010), it is in the most
cases far from trivial to identify them. The species chosen in the studies
reviewed here were mostly species too marginal in an ecosystem to
have a meaningful inuence on its biodiversity levels. The reason why
they are chosen is mostly the fact that they are endangered and/or
rare, not their ecosystemic importance. In a recent exploratory study including interviews and discussions with laypeople, it was stressed that
[p]articipants were explicit that the existence of a variety of animals
and plants was more important than any specic species (Bakhtiari
et al., 2014, p. 31). The sole focus on single species appears unsatisfactory and likely obscures the complex relationships within an ecosystem
(Mainwaring, 2001), as it suggests that the fate of single species has a
general impact on overall biodiversity. Furthermore, it has been pointed
out that the denition of rarity of species may itself be problematic and
of limited usefulness (McIntyre, 1992). When alien species are used as a
proxy, biodiversity is implicitly identied with a notion of original
10
There happen to be established relationships in specic cases. See, e.g., the justication
offered by Kragt et al. (2009) in the context of coral reefs.
11
This reects our contention that an ecosystem is more than the sum of its parts. Furthermore, the additive aggregation of the values of single ecosystem services might lead to
double counting (Fu et al., 2011).
pristinity, which has been criticised as nave since truly pristine ecosystems hardly exist (Ellis et al., 2013; Hobbs et al., 2013). In fact, alien species' effects on biodiversity are very case-specic and not generally
negative (Ricciardi et al., 2013; see also Warren, 2007; Gurevitch and
Padilla, 2004). Also, it has been found that biodiverse ecosystems are
less prone to the possibly adverse effects of alien species introductions,
which is a causal chain opposite to that suggested by the invasive alien
species proxy (Balvanera et al., 2006).
6.2.3. Numbers and Abstract
The use of numbers of species or of biodiversity indices like the
ShannonWiener index (Polak and Shashar, 2013) can be evaluated
jointly with the reference to the general, abstract concept of biodiversity, as these two approaches violate the criteria outlined in Section 4 in a
similar way. Both proxy categories were applied almost exclusively in
stated preference studies, with the exception of one study, which used
Simpson's diversity index in a model fed by life satisfaction and market
price data (Ambrey and Fleming, 2014). Stated preference methods
make it necessary to make clear to respondents the links between the
biodiversity proxy and human well-being. For this, the informational
basis of ecological biodiversity measures or vague concepts is very limited. For example, for a layperson it may not be clear what the actual
meaning of a specic number of species is. Jacobsen et al. (2008)
showed that knowledge of concrete species in the biodiversity mix increases people's value placed on biodiversity (WTP). In their interpretation, this might be an overestimation of the actual value of biodiversity.
However, another possible interpretation could be that the identied
discrepancy between WTP for abstract biodiversity and WTP for biodiversity of concrete species is due to insufcient understanding of the abstract concept by the interviewees (see also Martn-Lpez et al., 2008).
Bakhtiari et al. (2014) found that because people identify biodiversity's
functional aspects as a crucial component of its value, using species
numbers as an attribute of a CE study would not cover the true value
the general public has for biodiversity (p. 33).
6.2.4. Functions
This category emphasises roles rather than components of biodiversity (for denitions, see Section 4). Thus, the link to human well-being is
relatively clear. However, one might be tempted to argue that this
approach is redundant: biodiversity positively inuences the stability
and resilience of ecosystems (Balvanera et al., 2006), thus also
stabilising the generation and provision of ecosystem services (Mace
et al., 2012). The latter have a direct inuence on human well-being
and are therefore the appropriate objects of valuation (Boyd and
Banzhaf, 2007). Under this perspective, valuation of biodiversity and
its inuence on ecosystem functioning would result in doublecounting (Hamilton, 2013). However, it is possible to argue that a) the
double-counting issue only arises in accounting-like applications, not

when the goal of valuation is to provide information about and to communicate the value of biodiversity, and b) the stabilising effect of biodiversity has a value going beyond that of the services reliably provided
by a stable ecosystem. Indeed, this perspective is very close to the notions of precautionary principle and insurance/option value (Aldred,
2013).
6.2.5. Genetics
Also closely related to the notion of option value is the approach behind the valuation studies falling in the Genetics category. Similar to
Functions, this proxy focuses on roles rather than components of biodiversity. Two main sub-approaches can be distinguished here: one group
of studies focuses on agricultural varieties and their attractiveness for
either farmers or consumers (e.g., Birol et al., 2009; Dinis et al., 2011),
while others base their estimates of biodiversity value on information
about bioprospecting contracts and research expenditures (e.g., Erwin
et al., 2010; Jobstvogt et al., 2014). Both implicitly emphasise an important role of biodiversity as library (Goeschl and Swanson, 2007;
Weitzman, 1995), which contains information that may have value in
the future (see also Farnsworth et al., 2012).
According to the interpretation presented in this section, the most
common approaches to the economic valuation of biodiversity do not
full the criteria presented in Section 4. They are often too unspecic, either being too broad or too narrow to capture the essence of biodiversity. In fact, even the two approaches that appear most satisfactory,
namely Functions and Genetics, are by themselves rather limited in
their comprehensiveness and cannot capture the whole complexity of
the notion of biodiversity on their own.
In some studies, however, the attempt was made to operationalise
biodiversity by use of more than one proxy/attribute. In the following
section, these studies will be discussed in some more detail, as they
offer an approach that captures biodiversity in a more precise way,
being neither too narrow nor too encompassing.
6.3. Multi-Attribute Descriptions of Biodiversity
Biodiversity is a multidimensional concept; hence describing biodiversity with multiple attributes12 seems to be a sensible approach. Our
review reveals that this was done in 10 studies. Table 3 presents a list
of these studies and the attributes their authors used to describe biodiversity in the respective studies.
In all multi-attribute studies some version of the proxy category Species was applied, mostly involving rare or endangered species, in one
case alien species (Rajmis et al., 2010).13 Furthermore, 7 of these 10
studies used a proxy belonging to the Habitats category in their multiattribute description of biodiversity. Also, nearly half of all studies focusing on Functions (4 of 9) used a multi-attribute approach. This conrms the intuition that, while Functions alone might be viewed as too
imprecise and thus uninformative, it still reects an important aspect
of biodiversity value. Finally, attributes belonging to the categories
Numbers and Genetics were used once each.
Two interesting attributes proposed are landscape diversity in
Liebe and Preisendrfer (2007) and ecosystem components in
Czajkowski et al. (2009) (by which the latter mean dead wood,
ponds, streams, etc.). Both seem to emphasise abiotic components
of ecosystems, which ex denitione are not part of biodiversity.
However, at least in the latter case it might be argued that these ecosystem components can be considered potentially biodiverse micro12
In what follows, attribute and proxy will be used interchangeably, as the former
term is often used in economics to describe a good's (here: biodiversity) characteristics.
13
Indeed, contrary to the common use of the occurrence of invasive alien species as a
proxy for biodiversity, Rajmis et al. seem to emphasise the role of biodiversity in protecting
ecosystems against negative effects of alien species, which would actually t the Functions
category.
habitats. This means, on the one hand, that the critique of the Habitats category applies at least partly. On the other hand, this attribute
is an important attempt to take into account the astonishing biodiversity of insects and microbes living largely unnoticed in such
micro-habitats.
While the emphasis of the roles biodiversity plays in enhancing
human well-being was explicit in some of the attributes found
here, most studies focused on components, Rajmis et al. (2010)
being the only study that had a clear roles focus, stressing the functionality of biodiversity (Bakhtiari et al., 2014). As will be discussed
in the next section, this constitutes a major research gap and an
opportunity to enhance the practice of economic valuation of
biodiversity.
Given the predominantly indirect, non-use nature of biodiversity
value, the most encompassing way to value it is by means of stated
preference methods (Pascual et al., 2010; Hansjrgens et al., 2012).
In a multi-attribute approach, non-use values are likely to be relevant for at least some of the proxies used. Hence it is not surprising
that all 10 studies applied either choice experiments or contingent
valuation. Also, as choice experiments are a method specically designed to take into account the multitude of good characteristics (attributes) and their respective inuence on utility, it is not surprising
that in 8 of the multi-attribute studies this method was applied.
In general, the multi-attribute approach to economic valuation of
biodiversity appears very promising because it allows to better mirror the complexity and multidimensionality of biodiversity than
single-proxy approaches. At the same time, it allows to keep the underlying description of biodiversity specic without becoming too
encompassing. Therefore, we consider these multi-attribute studies
as representing best practice within our review. Especially the studies by Christie et al. (2006) and Czajkowski et al. (2009) offer highly
innovative and conceptually appealing approaches. However, it
might be worth putting more emphasis on the roles of biodiversity
instead of framing it in terms of its components (with the roles
being only implicitly related to components). This approach has, of
course, limitations. One clear limitation is data: our understanding
of biodiversity and its effects on both eco- and human-systems is
still very limited, and for many ecosystems data related to biodiversity are lacking (Hansjrgens et al., 2012). Furthermore, when biodiversity is valued via stated preference methods, the main challenge
is to determine the right amount of information provided to respondents that allows them to thoroughly understand the valuation object but does not lead to a cognitive overstrain (e.g., MacMillan
et al., 2006). In addition, there might be a trade-off between stressing
the roles biodiversity plays for human well-being, its functionality
(Bakhtiari et al., 2014), and using quantiable attributes, as recommended, e.g., by Bateman et al. (2004).14
7. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

The goal of the present review of studies that economically valued
biodiversity has been threefold: to give an overview about the state of
the art in this area of research, including a clustering and comparison
of approaches; to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches found in the relevant body of applied literature, including
the identication of best-practice studies; and to offer on that basis an
orientation as to how biodiversity might be valued appropriately and
so as to account for the complexity of the concept.
The review revealed a whole array of different approaches, but at the
same time showed that some of them are particularly frequent. Most importantly, around 80% of the studies applied stated preference methods. A
similar share used biodiversity proxies belonging to two attribute categories, based on the notions of habitat protection and rare/endangered/alien
14
We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.
Table 3
Multi-attribute biodiversity valuation studies.
Study
Attributes
Proxy categories
Birol et al. (2009a)
Christie et al. (2006)
Czajkowski et al. (2009)
Eggert and Olsson (2009)

Garber-Yonts et al. (2004)
Jobstvogt et al. (2014)

Lehtonen et al. (2003)
Liebe and Preisendrfer (2007)
MacMillan et al. (2001)

Rajmis et al. (2010)
Number of different species [and] their population levels

Number of different habitats and their size
Familiar species of wildlife
Rare (unfamiliar) species of wildlife
Habitat
Ecosystem processes
Natural ecological processes
Rare species of fauna and ora
Ecosystem components
Richness in species and richness within each species
Important for the sea's capacity to handle environmental disturbances, but also for productivity
Biodiversity reserves
Endangered species
Forest age management
Number of protected species
[Potential] new medicinal products
Number of endangered species
Conservation areas
[Number of] biotopes at favourable levels of conservation
Biotopes of rare species
Species richness
Age structure of the forests
Landscape diversity
Restoration of native forest
Reintroduction of the beaver/wolf
Dangers from alien species
Resilience
species, respectively. Even though the complexity and multidimensionality of the biodiversity concept are well recognised, only a few studies tried
to approach it in a multi-attribute way. Also, only four studies applied deliberative valuation methods. In most cases, valuation was based on components of biodiversity (particularly species), less on the roles it plays for
human well-being (e.g., as insurance or carrier of option value).
Based on our review we would like to suggest the following recommendations or orientation remarks on the road towards more consistent and comprehensive valuation of biodiversity:
First, given the concept's complexity, it appears essential to approach biodiversity on the basis of multiple attributes. Biodiversity
not only encompasses a number of levels and components, ranging
from genes to species to functional groups, it also plays a number
of different roles within ecosystemsand, consequentially, inuences human well-being in many different ways. Reliance on
single-attribute proxies is problematic because it tends to lead to
one of two extremes: either the proxy is too encompassing and unspecic (e.g., habitat protection) or it is too narrow and focuses on
one single aspect of biodiversity (e.g., rare species). Of course,
there are obstacles and trade-offs involved in the multi-attribute approach, too. First, the inclusion of too many attributes in stated preference based valuation may overtax respondents and thus lead to
less valid value estimates. In valuation of complex environmental
goods there is a general trade-off between simplicity of presentation
of the good and the quality of results. Here, focus group research and
careful pre-testing of the questionnaire help to determine the
amount of attributes that respondents are able to cope with. Second,
data constraints might play a role and inhibit the inclusion or specication of particular attributes. Nonetheless, we believe that economic valuation of biodiversity should be based on the use of
multiple attributes. The problems related to this approach are serious, but not insurmountable. In the end, it is a question of balance
between the extremes of too little and too much specicity. There
is a need for more research into the operationalisation of biodiversity for valuation purposes in a multi-attribute way.
Species
Habitats
Species
Species
Habitats
Functions
Functions
Species
Habitats
Species
Functions
Habitats
Species
Habitats
Species
Genetics
Species
Habitats
Habitats
Habitats/Species
Numbers
Habitats
Habitats
Habitats
Species
Species
Functions
Second, the trade-off between biodiversity's complexity and the cognitive limitations of humans (including the respondents in stated preference based valuation studies) might be eased by providing morethan-usual time and information to the respondents, e.g., through
deliberative valuation methods. While still relying on the elicitation
of individual preferences, these methods facilitate the formation of
informed preferences for unfamiliar and complex environmental
public goods such as biodiversity by giving respondents sufcient
information, time to think, room for discussion and clarication.
All these aspects are highly relevant when respondents have to
make up their mind about how important biodiversity is to them
and how much it is worth to them in monetary terms. Of course,
other ways are also thinkable to ease the acquisition and accommodation of complex information by respondents in stated preference
studies, e.g., through the use of web-based surveys (Lindhjem and
Navrud, 2011). It is crucial, however, to keep in mind that biodiversity is an exceptionally complex and unfamiliar environmental good
that might overstretch the capacity of usual stated preference
methodology.
Finally, we believe that it is less useful to describe biodiversity for
valuation purposes in terms of its components, be it species,
genes or biodiversity indices. Rather, biodiversity's inuence on
human well-being, the roles it playsas carrier of option value,
as insurance, as underpinning of stable ecosystems etc.should
be at centre. This is related to the observation that people around
the world are unfamiliar with the concept of biodiversity. Furthermore, being a concept and not a physical entity, biodiversity
inuences human well-being in a rather indirect way (or, actually, in a multiplicity of ways). The emphasis put on roles, not on
components, shortens the distance that cognitive processes
must cover both in the process of preference formation and
while translating those into monetary values. We are aware that
a role-based approach brings with it the difculty of nding
quantiable attributes. In some cases, there might be a trade-off
between quantiability and meaningfulness for the respondents.
There is a need to formulate a coherent framework for the valuation of biodiversity based on the roles it plays that would be feasible for practical application.
2.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Marc Vlker, Ralf Seppelt and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts. The
paper was developed as part of a PhD project within the Helmholtz Research School ESCALATE (Ecosystem Services Under Changing Land-Use
and Climate), based at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.
3.
4.
5.
Appendix A
The literature search for the review was conducted as follows:
1. The Web of Science database was searched by use of the following
terms: economic valu*, contingent valuation, choice model*,
choice experiment, conjoint analysis, contingent behavio*r,
6.
7.
travel cost, wtp, willingness*to*pay, pric* and biodiversity,

biological diversity, rare species, endangered species, threatened species, alien species (title, keywords, abstracts). Only
peer-reviewed articles were considered.
The resulting output was investigated more thoroughly: titles and abstracts were read (in ambivalent cases also the text body) so as to sort
out articles not being valuation studies (e.g., conceptual papers).
The remaining articles were read so as to nd out whether biodiversity
was actually among the valuation objects. Where this was not the case,
the respective publications were sorted out.
The TEEB Valuation Database was searched for articles which valued
the ecosystem service biodiversity protection.
Carson's Contingent Valuation Bibliography was searched for biodiversity and biological diversity as a check whether any relevant articles had been missed.
For the most recent articles (MarchOctober 2014), Google Scholar
was searched using the combination of valuation and biodiversity
in a full-text search.
If a valuation study was covered in more than one article, only the earliest peer-reviewed publication was included.
Appendix B
Table B.1
List of all valuation studies included in the review.
Authors
(Earliest peer-reviewed) publication
Year
Attributes
Abstract Number Genetics Species Functions Habitats
Multi-attribute studies
Birol et al.
Christie et al.
Czajkowski et al.
Eggert and Olsson
Garber-Yonts et al.
Jobstvogt et al.
Lehtonen et al.
Liebe and Preisendrfer
MacMillan et al.
Rajmis et al.
Single-attribute studies
Alavalapati et al.
Ambrey and Fleming
Amigues et al.
Anthony and Bellinger
Asrat et al.
Atkinson et al.
Baranzini et al.
Barr and Mourato
Bengochea et al.
Optimal management of wetlands: quantifying trade-offs between ood risks,

recreation, and biodiversity conservation, Water Resources Research 45(11)
Valuing the diversity of biodiversity, Ecological Economics 58(2)
Valuing changes in forest biodiversity, Ecological Economics 68(12)
Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality, Marine Policy 33(2)
Public values for biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon coast range,
Forest Science 50(5)
Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: estimating the value of protecting
deep-sea biodiversity, Ecological Economics 97
Non-market benets of forest conservation in southern Finland, Environmental
Science & Policy 6(3)
Zahlungsbereitschaft fr kollektive Umweltgter. Theoretische Grundlagen und
empirische Analysen am Fallbeispiel der Wertschtzung biologischer Vielfalt im
Wald, Zeitschrift fr Soziologie 36(5)
Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benets of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data, Environmental and Resource Economics
18(4)
Pythias Rache: zum konomischen Wert kologischer Risikovorsorge, GAIA 19(2)
Agroforestry development: an environmental economic perspective, Agroforestry

Systems 6162(12)
Valuing ecosystem diversity in South East Queensland: a life satisfaction
approach, Social Indicators Research 115(1)
The benets and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to
accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach, Ecological Economics
43(1)
Importance value of landscapes, ora and fauna to Tsonga communities in the
rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa, South African Journal of Science
103(34)
Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: lessons for on-farm conservation and
technology adoption, Ecological Economics 69(12)
When to take no for an answer? Using entreaties to reduce protests in
contingent valuation studies, Environmental and Resource Economics 51(4)
Tropical forest conservation: attitudes and preferences, Forest Policy and
Economics 12(5)
Investigating the potential for marine resource protection through environmental
service markets: an exploratory study from La Paz, Mexico, Ocean & Coastal
Management 52(11)
Anlisis conjunto y espacios naturales: una aplicacin al Paraje Natural del Desert
de les Palmes, Forest Systems 16(2)
2009
2006
2009
2009
2004
x
x
x
x
2014
2003
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2001
2010
2007
2004
2014
x
x
2002
2007
2010
2012
2010
2009
2007
x
(continued on next page)
10
Table B.1 (continued)

Authors
Year
Attributes
Bernard et al.
Bhandari and Heshmati

Bhat
Binabe and Hearne
Birol et al.
Birol et al.
Black et al.
Blamey et al.
Boman
Marzetti Dall'aste
Brandolini
Broch and Vedel
Caparrs et al.
Carlsson et al.
Cerda et al.
Cerda et al.
Cesar and van
Beukering
Chan-Halbrendt et al.
Chen and Jim

Colombo et al.
Curtis
Desaigues and Ami

Dikgang and
Muchapondwa
Dinis et al.
Do and Bennett
Erwin et al.
Fleischer et al.
Garcia et al.
Garca-Llorente et al.
Garcia-Yi
Garrod and Willis
Garrod and Willis
Gavin and Anderson
Glenk and Colombo
Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to nance their

conservation and sustainable use: a case study of Tapant National Park, Costa
Rica, Forest Policy and Economics 11(3)
Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing 27(6)
Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve
management, Journal of Environmental Management 67(4)
Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework
of environmental services payments, Forest Policy and Economics 9(4)
Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity on
Hungarian small farms, Environmental and Resource Economics 34(4)
Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modied maize in Mexico:
a latent class approach, Environmental and Development Economics 14
Valuing complex environmental goods: landscape and biodiversity in the North
Pennines, Environmental Conservation 37(2)
Valuing remnant vegetation in Central Queensland using choice modelling,
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44(3)
To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests what scale determines responses
to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?, Journal of
Forest Economics 15(12)
Investing in biodiversity: the recreational value of a natural coastal area,
Chemistry and Ecology 22
Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in
farmer agri-environmental contract preferences, Environmental and Resource
Economics 51(4)
Carbon sequestration with reforestations and biodiversity-scenic values,
Environmental and Resource Economics 45(1)
2009
2010
2002
2006
2006
2009
2010
2000
2009
2006
2012
2010
Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments, Ecological

Economics 47(1)
Valuing biodiversity attributes and water supply using choice experiments: a case
study of La Campana Peuelas Biosphere Reserve, Chile, Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 185(1)
Non-market economic valuation of the benets provided by temperate ecosystems at
the extreme south of the Americas, Regional Environmental Change 14(4)
Economic valuation of the coral reefs of Hawai'i, Pacic Science 58(2)
2003
2013
Hawaiian residents' preferences for Miconia control program attributes using

conjoint choice experiment and latent class analysis, Environmental Management
45(2)
Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation
in Guangzhou (China), Environmental Management 45(5)
Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice
experiments, Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(1)
Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market
and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign
weights to the attributes, Ecological Economics 50(34)
An estimation of the social benets of preserving biodiversity, International
Journal of Global Environmental Issues 1(1)
The valuation of biodiversity conservation by the South African Khomani San
bushmen community, Ecological Economics 84
Using sensory experiments to determine consumers' willingness to pay for
traditional apple varieties, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 9(2)
Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in
Vietnam's Mekong River Delta, Environmental and Development Economics
14(2)
The pharmaceutical value of marine biodiversity for anti-cancer drug discovery,
Ecological Economics 70(2)
A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an
invasive alien pollinator species, Ecological Economics 88
Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: application to forest
biodiversity, Journal of Forest Economics 15(12)
Social perceptions of the impacts and benets of invasive alien species:
Implications for management, Biological Conservation 141(12)
Identication of dried native chili markets in the international tourism sector in
Peru: an open-ended contingent valuation study, Sustainability 6(2)
Valuing biodiversity and nature conservation at a local level, Biodiversity &
Conservation 3(6)
The non-use benets of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking
study, Ecological Economics 21(1)
Testing a rapid quantitative ethnobiological technique: rst steps towards
developing a critical conservation tool, Economic Botany 59(2)
Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: an
assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects, Climatic
Change 105(12)
2010
2014
2004
x
x
2010
2005
2004
2001
2012
2011
2009
2010
x
x
2013
2009
2008
2014
x
x
1994
1997 x
2005
2011
x
x
11

Authors
Year
Attributes
Halkos and Jones

Hasund et al.
Heberlein et al.
Horne
Horne et al.
Hoyos et al.
Itsubo et al.
Jacobsen et al.
Jacobsen et al.
Jacobsen et al.
Jorgensen et al.
Juutinen et al.
Kaffashi et al.
Khai and Yabe
Koellner et al.
Kolahi et al.
Kragt et al.
Krishna et al.
Lindhjem and Mitani
Lindhjem and Navrud
Hatton MacDonald and
Morrison
Maharana et al.
Martin and Blossey
Martn-Lpez et al.
McVittie and Moran
Merganic et al.
Meyerhoff et al.
Mitani et al.
Morlando et al.
Morse-Jones et al.
Muriithi and Kenyon
Murillas-Maza et al.
Mwebaze et al.
Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection,

Ecological Economics 78
Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using
reference points to capture observable heterogeneity, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 54(1)
Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation,
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(1)
Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity
conservation a choice experiment based approach, Silva Fennica 40(1)
Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice
experiment, Forest Ecology and Management 207(12)
Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete
choice experiment: an illustration from the Basque Country, Journal of Forest
Economics 18(4)
Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint
analysis, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9(3)
What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus Iconised species
when valuing biodiversity, Environmental and Resource Economics 39(3)
Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental
preservation projects, Ecological Economics 70(6)
Valuation of wildlife populations above survival, Biodiversity and Conservation
21(2)
Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude
toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope, Ecological
Economics 36(1)
Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: a
choice experiment application, Ecological Economics 70(6)
2012
2011
Economic valuation and conservation: do people vote for better preservation of

Shadegan International Wetland?, Biological Conservation 150(1)
Choice modelling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the
biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam, International Journal of
Energy and Environmental Engineering 5(1)
Why and how much are rms willing to invest in ecosystem services from
tropical forests? A comparison of international and Costa Rican rms, Ecological
Economics 69(11)
From paper parks to real conservations: case study of social capital in Iran's
biodiversity conservation, International Journal of Environmental Research 8(1)
Effects of Great Barrier Reef degradation on recreational reef-trip demand: a
contingent behaviour approach, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 53(2)
Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural
biodiversity in developing countries, Ecological Economics 87
Forest owners' willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: a
contingent valuation approach, Journal of Forest Economics 18(4)
Asking for individual or household willingness to pay for environmental goods?,
Environmental and Resource Economics 43(1)
Valuing biodiversity using habitat types, Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management 17(4)
Valuing ecotourism in a sacred lake of the Sikkim Himalaya, India, Environmental
Conservation 27(3)
Invasive plant cover impacts the desirability of lands for conservation acquisition,
Biodiversity and Conservation 21(8)
The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity
conservation, Biological Conservation 139(12)
Valuing the non-use benets of marine conservation zones: An application to the
UK Marine Bill, Ecological Economics 70(2)
Relationship between biodiversity indicators and its economic value case
study, Periodicum Biologorum 115(3)
Valuing the benets of implementing a national strategy on biological
diversitythe case of Germany, Environmental Science & Policy 23
Estimating economic values of vegetation restoration with choice experiments: a
case study of an endangered species in Lake Kasumigaura, Japan, Landscape and
Ecological Engineering 4(2)
Reduction in Lyme disease risk as an economic benet of habitat restoration,
Restoration Ecology 20(4)
Ecosystem valuation: some principles and a partial application, Environmetrics
22(5)
Conservation of biodiversity in the Arabuko Sokoke Forest, Kenya, Biodiversity
and Conservation 11(8)
The value of open ocean ecosystems: a case study for the Spanish exclusive
economic zone, Natural Resources Forum, UN 35(2)
Economic valuation of the inuence of invasive alien species on the economy of
the Seychelles islands, Ecological Economics 69(12)
2012
2011 x
2005
2006
2005
2012
2004
2008
2011
2012
2001
2014
2010
2014
2009
2013
2012
2009
2010
2000
2012
2007
2010 x
2014
2012
2008
x
x
2011
2012
x
x
2002
2011
2010
x
12

Authors
Year
Attributes
Naidoo and Adamowicz

Ninan and Sathyapalan
Polak and Shashar
Poudel and Johnsen
Raboteur and Rodes
Rees et al.
Ressurreio et al.
Rodrguez-Entrena
et al.
Rogers et al.
Rolfe et al.
Sattout et al.
Schuhmann et al.
Shoyama et al.
Spash
Spash et al.
Stevens et al.
Stithou and Scarpa
Subade
Subade and Francisco
Surendran and Sekar
Susaeta et al.
Szab
Travisi and Nijkamp
Turpie
Turpie et al.
Van Beukering et al.

Veisten et al.
Veisten et al.
Vergano and Nunes
Wang and Jia
Wtzold et al.
Xu et al.
Westerberg et al.
Willis and Garrod
Wossink and van
Wenum
Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda, Environment

and Development Economics 10(2)
The economics of biodiversity conservation: a study of a coffee growing region in
the Western Ghats of India, Ecological Economics 55(1)
Economic value of biological attributes of articial coral reefs, ICES Journal of
Marine Science 70(4)
Valuation of crop genetic resources in Kaski, Nepal: farmers' willingness to pay
for rice landraces conservation, Journal of Environmental Management 90(1)
Application de la mthode d'valuation contingente aux rcifs coralliens dans la
Caraibe: tude applique la zone de Pigeon de la Guadeloupe, VertigO 7(1)
The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its
application to marine spatial planning, Marine Policy 34(5)
Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea, Ecological Economics 70(4)
Evaluating the demand for carbon sequestration in olive grove soils as a strategy
toward mitigating climate change, Journal of Environmental Management 112
The inclusion of non-market values in systematic conservation planning to enhance policy relevance, Biological Conservation 162
Valuing the preservation of rangelands: tree clearing in the desert uplands region
of Queensland, The Rangeland Journal 22(2)
Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: An application of contingent valuation
method for conservation, Ecological Economics 61(23)
Recreational SCUBA divers' willingness to pay for marine biodiversity in
Barbados, Journal of Environmental Management 121
Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: a
choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators, Land Use Policy 34
Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef
biodiversity, Journal of Economic Psychology 23(5)
Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water
ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology, Ecological Economics 68(4)
Public attitudes and economic values for wetland preservation in New England,
Wetlands 15(3)
Collective versus voluntary payment in contingent valuation for the conservation
of marine biodiversity: an exploratory study from Zakynthos, Greece, Ocean &
Coastal Management 56
Mechanisms to capture economic values of marine biodiversity: the case of
Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO World Heritage Site, Philippines, Marine Policy 31(2)
Do non-users value coral reefs?: Economic valuation of conserving Tubbataha
Reefs, Philippines, Ecological Economics 102
An economic analysis of willingness to pay (WTP) for conserving the biodiversity,
International Journal of Social Economics 37(8)
Assessing public preferences for forest biomass based energy in the Southern
United States, Environmental Management 45(4)
Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the
validity of biodiversity valuation, Ecological Economics 72
Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: a choice experiment
approach to pesticides in Italy, Ecological Economics 67(4)
The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience,
knowledge, income and perceived level of threat inuence local willingness to
pay, Ecological Economics 46(2)
Economic value of terrestrial and marine biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region:
implications for dening effective and socially optimal conservation strategies,
Biological Conservation 112(12)
Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia, Ecological
Economics 44(1)
Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities,
Journal of Environmental Management 73(4)
Lexicographic preference in biodiversity valuation: tests of inconsistencies and
willingness to pay, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(2)
Analysis and evaluation of ecosystem resilience: an economic perspective with an
application to the Venice lagoon, Biodiversity and Conservation 16(12)
Tourists' willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment
protection, Dalai Lake protected area: implications for entrance fee and
sustainable management, Ocean & Coastal Management 62
Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes,
Ecological Economics 68(12)
Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem
management using stated preferences, Forest Science 49(2)
To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des
Baux wetland in Southern France, Ecological Economics 69(12)
Biodiversity values for alternative management regimes in remote UK coniferous
forests: an iterative bidding polychotomous choice approach, Environmentalist 18(3)
Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent
participation, European Review of Agricultural Economics 30(4)
2005
2005
2013
2009
2006
2010
2011
2012
x
x
2013
2000
2007
2013
x
x
2013
2002 x
2009 x
1995
2012
2007
2014
2010
2010 x
2011 x
2008
2003
2003
2003
2004
2006
2007
2012
2008
2003
2010
x
x
x
1998
2003
13

Authors
Year
Wstemann et al.
Financial costs and benets of a program of measures to implement a National

Strategy on Biological Diversity in Germany, Land Use Policy 36
Assessment of indirect use values of forest biodiversity in Yaoluoping national
nature reserve, Anhui province, Chinese Geographical Science 13(3)
Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay, Ecological Economics 98
Valuing ecological functions of biodiversity in Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere
Reserve in Northeast China, Biodiversity & Conservation 10(3)
2014
Attributes
Xu et al.
Yao et al.
Xue and Tisdell
References
Aldred, J., 2013. Justifying precautionary policies: incommensurability and uncertainty.
Ecol. Econ. 96, 132140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.006.
Ambrey, C.L., Fleming, C.M., 2014. Valuing ecosystem diversity in South East Queensland:
a life satisfaction approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 115, 4565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-012-0208-4.
Anthony, B.P., Bellinger, E.G., 2007. Importance value of landscapes, ora and fauna to
Tsonga communities in the rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa. S. Afr.
J. Sci. 103, 148154.
Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28, 2247. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/oxrep/grs007.
Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J.B., Strange, N., Helles, F., 2014. Revealing lay people's perceptions
of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method.
Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 2742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.07.003.
Balvanera, P., Psterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., He, J.-S., Nakashizuka, T., Raffaelli, D., Schmid,
B., 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning
and services. Ecol. Lett. 9, 11461156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.
00963.x.
Bateman, I., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M.,
Loomes, G., Mourato, S., zdemirolu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swanson, J.,
2004. Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Baumgrtner, S., 2007. Why the measurement of species diversity requires prior value
judgements. In: Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Swanson, T.M. (Eds.), Biodiversity Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, pp. 293310.
Birol, E., Villalba, E.R., Smale, M., 2009. Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modied maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environ. Dev. Econ. 14,
521540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004944.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2007.01.002.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond,
R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M.,
Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A.,
Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H.,
Oldeld, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D.,
Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vi, J.-C.,
Watson, R., 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328,
11641168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512.
Carson, R.T., 2011. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; Northampton.
Carson, R.T., Louviere, J.J., 2011. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation
approaches. Environ. Resour. Econ. 49, 539559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640010-9450-x.
CBD, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations.
CBD, 2011. Report of the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for the Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 20112020. UNEP/CBD, Montreal.
Christie, M., Warren, J., Hanley, N., Murphy, K., Wright, R., 2004. Developing Measures for
Valuing Changes in Biodiversity: Final Report (Report). DEFRA, London.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., Hyde, T., 2006. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 58, 304317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2005.07.034.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Hyde, T., Murphy, K., Wright, R., 2007. Valuing ecological and anthropocentric concepts of biodiversity: a choice experiments application.
In: Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Swanson, T.M. (Eds.), Biodiversity Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, pp. 343368.
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Kenter, J.O., 2012. An evaluation of monetary
and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 83,
6778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012.
Cox, P.A., King, S., 2013. Bioprospecting. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 588599.
2003
2014
2001
x
x
x
Czajkowski, M., Buszko-Briggs, M., Hanley, N., 2009. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 68, 29102917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.016.
Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classication,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ.
41, 393408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
de Groot, R.S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Routledge, London; New York, pp. 940.
DEFRA, 2007. Report, Questionnaire and Data Tables Following SURVEY of Public Attitudes and Behaviours Toward the Environment: 2007. Defra, London.
DeLong, D.C., 1996. Dening biodiversity. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24, 738749. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3783168.
Dinis, I., Simoes, O., Moreira, J., 2011. Using sensory experiments to determine consumers'
willingness to pay for traditional apple varieties. Span. J. Agric. Res. 9. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5424/sjar/20110902-133-10.
Eggert, H., Olsson, B., 2009. Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Mar. Policy 33,
201206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.05.011.
Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., Fuller, D.Q., Vavrus, S., Goldewijk, K.K., Verburg, P.H., 2013. Used
planet: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 201217241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1217241110.
Elmqvist, T., Maltby, E., Barker, T., Mortimer, M., Perrings, C., 2010. Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge, London; New York,
pp. 41111.
Erwin, P.M., Lpez-Legentil, S., Schuhmann, P.W., 2010. The pharmaceutical value of marine biodiversity for anti-cancer drug discovery. Ecol. Econ. 70, 445451. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.030.
Farnsworth, K.D., Lyashevska, O., Fung, T., 2012. Functional complexity: the source of
value in biodiversity. Ecol. Complex. 11, 4652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.
2012.02.001.
Figge, F., 2004. Bio-folio: applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 13,
827849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000011729.93889.34.
Fu, B.-J., Su, C.-H., Wei, Y.-P., Willett, I.R., L, Y.-H., Liu, G.-H., 2011. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures. Ecol. Res. 26, 114. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3.
Garber-Yonts, B., Kerkvliet, J., Johnson, R., 2004. Public Values for Biodiversity Conservation Policies in the Oregon Coast Range. For. Sci. 50, 589602.
Garrod, G.D., Willis, K.G., 1994. Valuing biodiversity and nature conservation at a local
level. Biodivers. Conserv. 3, 555565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00115161.
Gaston, K.J., 1996a. What is biodiversity? In: Gaston, K.J. (Ed.), Biodiversity: A Biology of
Numbers and Difference. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA, pp. 19
Gaston, K.J., 1996b. Species richness: measure and measurement. In: Gaston, K.J. (Ed.),
Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference. Blackwell Science, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 77113.
Gerstner, K., Dormann, C.F., Vclavk, T., Kreft, H., Seppelt, R., 2014. Accounting for geographical variation in speciesarea relationships improves the prediction of plant
species richness at the global scale. J. Biogeogr. 41, 261273. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/jbi.12213.
Gotelli, N.J., Chao, A., 2013. Measuring and Estimating Species Richness, Species Diversity,
and Biotic Similarity from Sampling Data. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. pp. 195211.
Goeschl, T., Swanson, T.M., 2007. Designing the legacy library of genetic resources: approaches, methods and results. In: Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Swanson, T.M. (Eds.),
Biodiversity Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Gregory, R., 2000. Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions.
Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 42, 3444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00139150009604888.
Gurevitch, J., Padilla, D.K., 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends
Ecol. Evol. 19, 470474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services
and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New
Synthesis, Ecological Reviews. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York,
pp. 110139.
14
Hamilton, K., 2013. Biodiversity and National Accounting (No. WPS 6441). World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Hansjrgens, B., Lienhoop, N., Herkle, S., 2012. Grenzen und Reichweite der
konomischen Bewertung von Biodiversitt (Limits and scope of economic valuation
of biodiversity). Expert Opinion Report. Ofce of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Berlin.
Heal, G.M., 2000. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hobbs, R.J., Higgs, E.S., Hall, C.M. (Eds.), 2013. Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New
Ecological World Order. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken, NJ.
Jacobsen, J.B., Boiesen, J.H., Thorsen, B.J., Strange, N., 2008. What's in a name? The use of
quantitative measures versus Iconised species when valuing biodiversity. Environ.
Resour. Econ. 39, 247263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9107-6.
Jacobsen, J.B., Lundhede, T.H., Thorsen, B.J., 2012. Valuation of wildlife populations above
survival. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 543563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-0110200-3.
Jax, K., 2010. Ecosystem Functioning, Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Jobstvogt, N., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Kenter, J., Witte, U., 2014. Twenty thousand sterling
under the sea: estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity. Ecol. Econ.
97, 1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.019.
Kahn, J.R., O'Neill, R., Stewart, S., 2001. Stated preference approaches to the measurement
of the value of biodiversity. In: OECD (Ed.), Valuation of Biodiversity Benets: Selected Studies. OECD, Paris, pp. 91119.
Koricheva, J., Siipi, H., 2004. The phenomenon of biodiversity. In: Oksanen, M., Pietarinen,
J. (Eds.), Philosophy and Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 2753.
Kragt, M.E., Roebeling, P.C., Ruijs, A., 2009. Effects of Great Barrier Reef degradation on recreational reef-trip demand: a contingent behaviour approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour.
Econ. 53, 213229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00444.x.
Kumar, P. (Ed.), 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge, London; New York.
Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Li, C.-Z., 2003. Non-market benets of
forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 6, 195204. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2.
Liebe, U., Preisendrfer, P., 2007. Zahlungsbereitschaft fr kollektive Umweltgter.
Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen am Fallbeispiel der
Wertschtzung biologischer Vielfalt im Wald. Z. Soziol. 36, 326345.
Lienhoop, N., MacMillan, D.C., 2007. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and
WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24,
289295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.001.
Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., 2011. Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecol. Econ. 70, 16281637. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.002.
Mace, G.M., 2014. Biodiversity: its meanings, roles, and status. In: Helm, D., Hepburn, C.
(Eds.), Nature in the Balance: The Economics of Biodiversity. Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 3556.
Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 1926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.
08.006.
MacMillan, D.C., Duff, E.I., Elston, D.A., 2001. Modelling the Non-market Environmental
Costs and Benets of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data. Environ.
Resour. Econ. 18, 391410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011169413639.
MacMillan, D.C., Philip, L., Hanley, N., Alvarez-Farizo, B., 2002. Valuing the non-market
benets of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches. Ecol. Econ. 43, 4959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00182-9.
MacMillan, D.C., Hanley, N., Lienhoop, N., 2006. Contingent valuation: environmental
polling or preference engine? Ecol. Econ. 60, 299307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2005.11.031.
Magurran, A.E., 1996. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London.
Maier, D.S., 2012. What's so good about biodiversity? A call for better reasoning about
nature's value. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food
Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht; New York.
Mainwaring, L., 2001. Biodiversity, biocomplexity, and the economics of genetic dissimilarity. Land Econ. 77, 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3146982.
Martn-Lpez, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J., 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conserv. Biol. 22, 624635. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00921.x.
McIntyre, S., 1992. Risks associated with the setting of conservation priorities from rare
plant species lists. Biol. Conserv. 60, 3137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00063207(92)90796-P.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Meinard, Y., Grill, P., 2011. The economic valuation of biodiversity as an abstract good.
Ecol. Econ. 70, 17071714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.003.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853858. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/35002501.
Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., Landers, D.H., 2012. Where is the consensus? A
proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ.
77, 2735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001.
Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity
blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69, 12191227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009.
Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or
nonsense? Ecol. Econ. 39, 203222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09218009(01)00233-6.
Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Nijkamp, P., 2003. The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity: Methods and Applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham; Northampton.
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gmez-Baggethun, E., Martn-Lpez, B., Verma, M.,
2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Kumar, P.
(Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge, London; New York, pp. 183256.
Pearce, D.W., 2001. Valuing biological diversity: issues and overview. In: OECD (Ed.), Valuation of Biodiversity Benets: Selected Studies. OECD, Paris, pp. 2744.
Pearce, D.W., Moran, D., 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London.
Pereira, H.M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G.N., Jongman, R.H.G., Scholes, R.J., Bruford,
M.W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S.H.M., Cardoso, A.C., Coops, N.C., Dulloo, E., Faith,
D.P., Freyhof, J., Gregory, R.D., Heip, C., Hft, R., Hurtt, G., Jetz, W., Karp, D.S.,
McGeoch, M.A., Obura, D., Onoda, Y., Pettorelli, N., Reyers, B., Sayre, R.,
Scharlemann, J.P.W., Stuart, S.N., Turak, E., Walpole, M., Wegmann, M., 2013. Essential
biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
1229931.
Polak, O., Shashar, N., 2013. Economic value of biological attributes of articial coral reefs.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 904912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst014.
Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., 2010. Pythias Rache: zum konomischen Wert
kologischer Risikovorsorge. GAIA 19, 114121.
Ricciardi, A., Hoopes, M.F., Marchetti, M.P., Lockwood, J.L., 2013. Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecol. Monogr. 83, 263282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-0183.1.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. A quantitative
review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead.
J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 630636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.
Solow, A., Polasky, S., Broadus, J., 1993. On the measurement of biological diversity.
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 24, 6068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1004.
Spash, C.L., 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic
and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 63, 690699.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.
Swanson, T.M. (Ed.), 1998. The Economics and Ecology of Biodiversity Decline: The Forces
Driving Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Swingland, I.R., 2013. Denition of biodiversity. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 399410.
Szab, Z., 2011. Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: improving the validity of biodiversity valuation. Ecol. Econ. 72, 3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025.
Takacs, D., 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ten Kate, K., Laird, S.A., 2000. The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic
Resources and Benet-sharing. Earthscan, London.
Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493510. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00189-7.
UEBT, 2013. Biodiversity Barometer 2013.
Van der Ploeg, S., de Groot, R.S., 2010. The TEEB Valuation Database A Searchable Database of 1310 Estimates of Monetary Values of Ecosystem Services.
Veisten, K., Fredrik Hoen, H., Navrud, S., Strand, J., 2004. Scope insensitivity in contingent
valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manag. 73, 317331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008.
Warren, C.R., 2007. Perspectives on the alien versus native species debate: a critique of
concepts, language and practice. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31, 427446. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0309132507079499.
Wtzold, F., Lienhoop, N., Drechsler, M., Settele, J., 2008. Estimating optimal conservation
in the context of agri-environmental schemes. Ecol. Econ. 68, 295305. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.007.
Weitzman, M.L., 1992. On diversity. Q. J. Econ. 107, 363405. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2118476.
Weitzman, M.L., 1995. Diversity functions. In: Perrings, C., Folke, C., Mler, K.-G., Holling,
C.S., Jansson, B.-O. (Eds.), Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 2143.
Weitzman, M.L., 1998. The Noah's ark problem. Econometrica 66, 1279. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/2999617.
Weitzman, M.L., 2000. Economic protability versus ecological entropy. Q. J. Econ. 115,
237263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355300554728.

Ecological Economics: Bartosz Bartkowski, Nele Lienhoop, Bernd Hansjürgens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological Economics: Bartosz Bartkowski, Nele Lienhoop, Bernd Hansjürgens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic

biodiversity, which reect various perspectives and specic research

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

and no consensus on a common framework has yet been reached

The remainder of our article is structured as follows: in Section 2, an

2. Denitions and Measures of Biodiversity

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

respective categories. As a result, the following attribute categories

An important criterion according to which the categories dened

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

biodiversity not be taken to be a synonym for nature or ecosystem,

5. Review of Existing Biodiversity Valuation StudiesBasic Results

A full list of the studies included in this review is provided in Appendix B.

Let us now return to Fig. 1. Panel c) reveals that a number of different

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Fig. 1. Basic results of the literature review on economic valuation of biodiversity.

6.2. Evaluation of Biodiversity Proxies

Fig. 2. Temporal development of economic valuations of biodiversity.

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

double-counting issue only arises in accounting-like applications, not

7. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Birol et al. (2009a)

Christie et al. (2006)

Czajkowski et al. (2009)

Eggert and Olsson (2009)

Jobstvogt et al. (2014)

Liebe and Preisendrfer (2007)

MacMillan et al. (2001)

Number of different species [and] their population levels

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

travel cost, wtp, willingness*to*pay, pric* and biodiversity,

(Earliest peer-reviewed) publication

Anthony and Bellinger

Optimal management of wetlands: quantifying trade-offs between ood risks,

Agroforestry development: an environmental economic perspective, Agroforestry

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Table B.1 (continued)

(Earliest peer-reviewed) publication

Bhandari and Heshmati

Chen and Jim

Desaigues and Ami

Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to nance their

Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments, Ecological

Hawaiian residents' preferences for Miconia control program attributes using

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Table B.1 (continued)

(Earliest peer-reviewed) publication

Halkos and Jones

Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection,

Economic valuation and conservation: do people vote for better preservation of

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Table B.1 (continued)

(Earliest peer-reviewed) publication

Naidoo and Adamowicz

Van Beukering et al.

Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda, Environment

B. Bartkowski et al. / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 114

Table B.1 (continued)

travel cost, wtp, willingnesstopay, pric* and biodiversity,